macarthur31

Rogers apparently "crossing up" the catcher during garbage time is the perfect tribute to a Framber Valdez start.

What happened to McKinstry this year? He was Temu Zobrist last year for them with 3.2 WAR. And yeah, I agree with ya, Boog - this is rough with 3 innings to go.

His monthly splits: April '26. 110 PA, .188/.282/.271. April '25. 85 PA .270/.365/.554 May '26. 130 PA, .300/.446/.510. May '25 88 PA .234/.330/.390 June '26. 118 PA, .211/.364/.389. June '25 91 PA, .309/.385/.617 July '26. 63 PA. .309/.381/.527. July '25 97 PA. .279/.361/.547 Post ASB'26. 19 PA .353/.421/.706. Post ASB'25. 251 PA .223/.299/.487 vs. LHP '26, 135 PA. .255/.378/.400 vs LHP '25. 95 PA .207/.274/.368. I don't think he'll stay at scorching, but I certainly think he can finish Post ASB '26 higher than he did last year as he's maintained a discerning eye.

Came across this again, and checked out his splits 6/10/26 - 7/19/26 133 PA 6.0% BB Rate / 21.1% K Rate (Through 6/9/26 it was 2.2%/32.4% BB/K) .295/.338/.467, .806 OPS .368 wOBA 115 wRC+

I've been of the mind that for the Owners, the salary cap would be a huge win, but perhaps not enough to derail a whole season. However, they could use it to push for other wins in the CBA. However, included in MLB's original proposal is to pool all the local broadcast rights together to create an uber-package for a streamer, which is only viable if cap/floor is achieved. Currently its just 48% of local revenue (which local TV deals are included) is pooled, and that gets redistributed at about $110M per team. Currently, the Dodgers make $334M per year in just their local TV deal - which means they still get to keep $173M of local tv money to themselves. The other big local TV deals (and what stays home): Yankees $217M ($113M stays); Angels $172M ($89M stays); Our Cubbies $132M ($68M stays); Mets $128M ($67M stays) Red Sox $110M ($57M stays) Tom Ricketts may be quoted as "We love our independence," but consider that in the status quo, the Cubs get $90M share from the current national TV package. While they may "lose" out on keeping $68M for themselves, the Cubs could potentially gain way more in a new super national TV package sold to Netflix or Amazon, and erase the disparity between the Cubs and the Dodgers ($173M-$68M in local tv deal that isn't currently pooled), AND get the salary cap (Ricketts/Cubs already cover "the floor", so that won't be deal breaker for them). Another potential benefit for Ricketts is he gets to shutter Marquee ,or at least doesn't have to cover the costs of running local TV broadcasts (or a network). Evan Drellich (The Athletic) affirms that without cap/floor, then there's no reason for the big markets to join in a national package, as the Dodgers would likely be content to keep cashing those checks in their deal which runs through 2038. Again, as a fan, we don't really benefit as much as the owners will from a more centralized media package that the MLB can sell. The NFL has national broadcasts for all regular season and playoffs, and fans still have to navigate through the different platforms (FOX, NFL, CBS, Amazon, Netflix, etc), and that will likely persist for MLB. However, this may be a key driver in the Owners really committing to getting the cap/floor included - and as a result, I'm moving it over from Defcon 3 to Defcon 2.

I'm of the mind that the way the Competitive Balance Tax is currently structured, the owners have the salary cap that they can live with. Yes, the Dodgers are "abusing" it the system, as stated earlier, but if MLB really wanted to "level the playing field" they could re-arrange their own revenue sharing rules to mitigate that (which are how they divvy up the national media contracts and 48% local revenues), and those don't require the MLBPA. Do they want to have a hard cap? Of course! That would increase cost certainty (which would allow them to accurately appraise their franchise value) and also prevent future owners from hurting themselves (akin to how the NBA prohibits back to back first round draft picks to be thrown into deals). But, they don't want to install the floor that all the other major leagues have done. That would require them to open the books. They don't want that oversight. However, the salary cap and the notion of "competitive balance" is a winning issue in this campaign - November '25 Morning Consult poll cited that a super majority of avid and casual fans wanted cap-and-floor. They've done the ground work with building up a social media brigade of advocates and aligned an ad campaign to hammer this mental model home. Why waste it? I intuit that the owners will not get a true "hard cap", but they will likely use it to win in other ways like contracting the draft (also slashing bonuses to draft picks as well as prohibiting prep players from being selected), or perhaps even capping contract lengths. Maybe Manfred will go hard in this round of negotiations - the owners' getting a better deal will tee them up for even wealthier national media contracts, and expansion moolah when they add 2 more teams. However, I do think that canceling games is his third rail, and they'll sort it out sometime in February.

This morning's read that made me go 🤔 Neil Payne's analysis in The Athletic: "History says one of these 7 teams should win the World Series." Payne did this last season where he looked at: statistical cutoffs that separate real contenders from the rest of the pack...to find a series of rules to match the patterns of previous champions. The summary, there are several standards of varying import (points suggest how Payne weighted it). Tier 1 Overall quality (Runs/game differential): 18 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 6.1 (the average weighted rank for non-WS teams was 16.0, making it a +10.1 gap. Key cutoff: 90% of World Series teams rank 14th or better at the break: 18 points Cubs: PASSED (currently 5th) Tier 2 Offense (Batting Win Probablility Added): 12 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 7.1 (+8.9 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key Cutoff: 95% of WS teams rank 19th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (currently 2nd) Pitching and defense (Pitching WHIP+): 8 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 9.7 (+6.2 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 75% of WS teams rank 14th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (13th) Tier 3 Starting pitching (Rotation ERA-): 5 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 10.4 (+5.5 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 55% of WS teams rank 10th or better at the break Cubs: FAILED (23rd) Defense (Fielding Runs): 5 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 10.4 (+5.5 vs. non-WS teams ranking) - Also, not a typo as this is the same as Starting Pitching above Key cutoff: 65% of WS teams rank 12th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (1st) Relief Pitching (Bullpen "Meltdown" Avoidance): 4 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 11.0 (+4.7 vs. non-WS teams ranking) Key cutoff: 85% of WS teams rank 22nd or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (17th) Tier 4 Power hitting (Slugging %): 4 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 7.9 (+8.1 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 90% of WS teams rank 15th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (10th) Plate discipline (OBP): 3 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 8.6 (+7.4 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 90% of WS teams rank 18th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (4th) Contact Prevention (Opponent Batting Average): 3 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 9.1 (+6.9 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 90% of WS teams rank 17th or better at the break Cubs: FAILED (19th) Pitching dominance (K-BB%): 2 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 11.3 (+4.5 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 95% of WS teams rank 20th or better Cubs: PASSED (16th) Home run prevention (Pitching HR/9+): 2 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 12 (+3.7 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 95% of WS teams rank 26th or better at the break Cubs: FAILED (29th) Clutch Performance (Batting "clutch" score): 1 point Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 13.3 (+2.3 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 70% of WS teams rank 20th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (17th) Speed/baserunning (Speed Score): 1 point Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 13.3 (+2.3 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 50% of WS teams rank 12th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (10th) Here's your best 7 (Mostly passed the above tests - 80% scores or above) Yankees (68/68 points) Dodgers (67 points) Braves (64 points) Rays (62 points) Brewers (59 points) Cubs (58 points) Mariners (55 points)

Padres are about to be sold for a record setting $3.9B. If the current owners keep crying poor, there appears to be others willing and happy to come in and try their hand. And this is without the implementation of "cost certainty" measures like salary caps or minor league contraction.

Last year, Evan Dreilich reported at the Athletic about MLB's Fan Council, which was a monthly video call with 90 fans and league executives, which on the surface seems like logical business practice in terms of staying connected with the customer to learn what's working and not. However, when it turns out that those 90 aren't necessarily rotating in and out, and are comprised of those with large social media followings (with handles like "Rational Yankees Fan") - it's hard not to intuit that this was MLB setting up it's influencers to push their agenda on social media. Align that work with a paid media push to "Level the Playing Field", and while fans don't necessarily "vote" on the CBA, they really want to win fan favor. And, their political messaging focusing on "fairness through reducing payroll disparity" is compelling because of it's simplicity. Granted, in my Cub text chats, we're likely all aligned that this framing is BS, and that owners have always had the capability to narrow the gap themselves - they just opted not to, I intuit that the general baseball fan population isn't there. I'm curious to see how MLBPA is trying to counter this. In 2026, there are many more content creators like the former players at Foul Territory(who are former players) or Trevor May who have a good sized platform and credibility to push back, but it's gonna need more.

Both the NBA and NFL have 90% floor for salary cap - if a franchise doesn't spend the floor, then they cannot participate in revenue sharing (*gulp*). The NFL also sets a 90% floor, but they do that over an average of 3 seasons. However, the penalty is less severe - in this case, the team just pays the shortfall to the NFLPA, and the union distributes that to the players who were rostered at that time. And, yes, salary cap is pointless without a floor.

The only way that I can envision that the players defer to a salary cap (and if it does, it oughtta paired with a floor akin to what the NBA has - which is 90% of cap), then the owners should allow the MLBPA to determine what exactly entails "Baseball Related Income," and that includes review every season so that owners can't come up with new categories to stash money. Also, I subscribe to MLB.tv to watch the Cubs, and I'm starting to be inundated with MLB's ad campaign - "Level The Playing Field". Deep sigh.

I join you in feeling somewhat optimistic. I was elated when Jed swooped in and signed Counsell, as since I've lived here in Milwaukee for the past 15 years (and live about half mile south of Craig Counsell Park, no less) and witnessed how his steady management helped contribute to closing the Cubs' championship window so abruptly. I'd offer that that's been a significant factor in keeping the Cubs' in the mix, and perhaps in striking distance down the stretch when (fingers crossed) the majority of our hitters can be playing closer to the back of their baseball card.

I align with getting a playoff starter and high lev (closer 1B) relief arm as well. It's too bad Michael Soroka didn't hang around longer, cause whatever Jed/Carter saw in him it's showing out this year: 15 GS 82.0 IP 3.07 ERA, 3.95 xERA 2.94 FIP, 3.60 xFIP 18.6 K-BB% 1.09 WHIP With regards to performance, this would slot just behind Ben Brown, but well ahead of the rest on our rotation. All this for $7.5M. All this to say, if Jed/Carter sign someone and I'm like, "Huh?!" I'm gonna give 'em the benefit of the doubt.

I think I read somewhere that during his recent stint in Des Moines, he's gotten the K Rate to 25%, while maintaining the slug. (Or maybe I dreamed it?). If true, let's get him some run against some lefties.

Jaguar reports for duty! Does that mean Matt Shaw to the IL?